MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3166370390 · doi:10.1055/s-0041-1729783

Endovascular Treatment for Acute Mesenteric Ischaemia

2017· article· en· W3166370390 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Khalid Bashaeb, Marawan El Farargy, George Α. Antoniou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Arab Journal of Interventional Radiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAbdominal vascular conditions and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioObservational studyConfidence intervalMeta-analysisMEDLINEInternal medicinePerioperativeSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) is associated with a significant morbidity and mortality. Endovascular techniques have emerged as a viable alternative treatment option to conventional surgery. We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of reported outcomes. Methods: Our review conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards with the protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035667). We searched electronic information sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL) and bibliographic lists of relevant articles to identify studies reporting outcomes of endovascular treatment for AMI of embolic or thrombotic aetiology. We defined 30-day or in-hospital mortality and bowel resection as the primary outcome measures. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the methodological quality of observational studies. We calculated combined overall effect sizes using random effects models; results are reported as the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: We identified 19 observational studies reporting on a total of 3362 patients undergoing endovascular treatment for AMI. The pooled estimate of peri-interventional mortality was 0.245 (95% CI 0.197-0.299), that of the requirement for bowel resection 0.326 (95% CI 0.229-0.439), and the pooled estimate for acute kidney injury was 0.132 (95% CI 0.082-0.204). Eight studies reported comparative outcomes of endovascular versus surgical treatment for AMI (endovascular group, 3187 patients; surgical group, 4998 patients). Endovascular therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of 30-day mortality (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.30-0.67, P 140.0001), bowel resection (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34-0.59, P < 0.00001) and acute renal failure (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.49-0.68, P < 0.00001). No differences were identified in septic complications or the development of short bowel syndrome. Conclusions: Endovascular therapy confers improved outcomes compared to conventional surgery, reduced mortality, risk of bowel resection and acute renal failure. An endovascular-first approach should be considered in patients presenting with AMI.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Arab Journal of Interventional RadiologySame topicAbdominal vascular conditions and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207